fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Pat Toomey
Toomey Background * R * former Congressman and did his own term limit * ran for US Senate against Arlen Specter and did well, but lost Bio Pat Toomey, 45 in 2009, is the President and CEO of the Club for Growth, America's leading limited-government, free-enterprise advocacy group. Before joining the Club for Growth, Mr. Toomey served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, from Pennsylvania's 15th congressional district, for three terms, from January 1999 through January 2005. Mr. Toomey distinguished himself as one of Congress's leading advocates for limited government and personal freedom. He served on the Budget Committee, the Financial Services Committee and the Small Business Committee. In 2005, Mr. Toomey co-founded Team Capital Bank, now operating in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. He co-chairs the Board of Directors. Mr. Toomey also serves on the Board of Directors of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Bradley Foundation is devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles, and values that sustain and nurture it. Mr. Toomey also serves on the Board of Directors of the Commonwealth Foundation. Prior to his service in Congress, Mr. Toomey co-founded, owned and operated four very successful, original-concept restaurants and bars in Allentown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His first career was in investment banking from 1984 through 1991. He helped develop and manage a $21 billion derivatives trading operation for Morgan Grenfell Finance, Inc. in New York, supervising sales and trading operations in New York, London and Tokyo. Mr. Toomey attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI and graduated from Harvard University, cum laude, with a degree in government. Links * Pat Toomey on Wikipedia * Club for Growth * Commonwealth Foundation Details Commentary from May, 2006, It wasn't the raise; it was the lack of Republican principles :By Pat Toomey The May 16 primary provides useful lessons for Republicans across the commonwealth and the country as we approach the 2006 general election in a very challenging political environment. Here are a few of those lessons: It wasn't all about the pay raise. Yes, the legislative pay raise in Pennsylvania contributed significantly to the energy supporting challengers' campaigns, but it was not the main driver of the political bloodbath. The main reason so many Republican incumbents lost to little-known primary challengers was the accumulated frustration of the rank and file with elected Republicans who had abandoned their party's principles - especially the principle of limited government. This is a huge problem for Republicans holding federal office, too. Supporting the dissatisfied-GOP-voter theory is that most Democrats, and Republican Rep. Tom Creighton, a solid conservative who voted for the pay increase, handily defeated their challengers. In addition, a poll conducted three weeks before the election underscored the point. In that survey of the 48th Senate District, Sen. David J. Brightbill led challenger Mike Folmer on the ballot test, 43-24, even though 66 percent of those surveyed knew Brightbill had voted for the pay raise. What the voters didn't know was much more important. Seventy-one percent didn't know that he had voted for the four largest tax increases in Pennsylvania history. Seventy-two percent didn't know that he had voted for budgets that grew much faster than inflation and, in at least one year, greatly exceeded the spending requested by liberal Democratic Gov. Rendell. The poll clearly indicated that if Folmer had the resources to inform voters of Brightbill's tax-and-spend record, he could come from way behind and still win. Folmer got the resources and won, emphasizing fiscal discipline. Candidates matter. The old saying "You can't beat someone with no one" rang true in the primary. In the marquee races, challengers John Eichelberger and Mike Folmer were both strong candidates. Eichelberger, who defeated Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer, had several successful countywide races under his belt. He was sharp, poised, articulate, and able to raise significant money. Folmer was the consummate nonpolitician. A plainspoken tire salesman, Folmer exuded sincerity and passion. His enthusiasm was contagious. He and Eichelberger were personable and credible. More important, both candidates ran as Ronald Reagan conservatives promising a return to the core Republican values of limited government, personal freedom, lower taxes and less spending. This was also the message of successful Republican challengers across the state. In the end, strong conservative candidates won, liberals lost. Unprecedented conservative institutional support. One of the most impressive and potentially important aspects of the primary was the role of young conservative institutions. In past election cycles, conservatives daring to challenge the moderate establishment politicians were on their own. This time they had institutional support. The two-year-old Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania, led by Chris Lilik, kept attention on the pay raise throughout Central Pennsylvania almost from the moment of the vote. They ran radio ads, organized rallies and, late in the race, spent substantial sums reminding voters of the importance of limited government. The Pennsylvania Club for Growth, itself less than two years old, led by Kathryn English, endorsed candidates, validating their claims as fiscal conservatives. The club spent heavily on TV and mail criticizing incumbents who voted for higher taxes. Two of the club's three endorsed candidates won. The Commonwealth Foundation, although nonpartisan, is strongly committed to limited government and personal freedom. Led by Matt Brouillette, it provided conservative candidates with a wealth of facts, figures and analyses revealing the problems liberal economic policies have inflicted upon Pennsylvania and demonstrating the successes of conservative policies where they have been implemented. Frustrated Republican voters, fed up with big-government Republican incumbents and seeing credible challengers supported by conservative institutions, made sweeping changes. The danger for GOP majorities across the country this fall is that Republican voters may still be frustrated with their incumbents. In the fall, they won't have primary challengers through which to vent their frustration. But they can stay home. Republican officeholders have very little time left to demonstrate to these voters that it's still worth coming out to vote. Toomey